Tired of months of disappointment with AstraZeneca, the EU decides to go the extra mile.
The European Commission announced Monday that it had attacked the Swedish-British laboratory for failing to keep its commitments on deliveries of its vaccine.
A legal action that the pharmaceutical group immediately deemed "unfounded", underlining its desire to "defend itself firmly".
But what can the Twenty-Seven hope for from these lawsuits, even as the “race against time” to try to curb the spread of Covid-19 and its variants continues.
The Parisian takes stock.
Why such an action?
The charges are not new.
Delays in deliveries have multiplied in recent months in France and among its European neighbors.
In all, AstraZeneca has so far delivered only 30 million doses of the 120 million promised.
And the situation should not necessarily be released immediately: in the second quarter, the pharmaceutical giant intends to deliver only 70 million of the 180 million initially planned.
What arouse the impatience of the European Commission which considers that the laboratory has not respected its contract obligations with the EU.
An urgent action was thus launched Friday "on behalf of the Commission as well as on behalf of the twenty-seven Member States, unanimous in their support for this procedure", indicated a spokesperson for the European institution.
The objective for the EU is then clear: to recover the ordered doses as quickly as possible.
What does AstraZeneca say?
Faced with the threats, the laboratory said in a statement that this legal action was "unfounded", and showed its willingness to "defend itself firmly".
Trying to justify itself, the group assured to have "completely respected" the contract signed with Brussels and to be on the verge of delivering 50 million doses by the end of April, "in accordance with forecasts".
He thus hopes to have "the opportunity to settle this dispute as soon as possible".
Already last month, the laboratory had justified its delays, explaining that the United States, which produces part of its vaccines, had refused to export its doses, thus blocking important deliveries.
Read alsoVaccine deliveries: what recourse for France in the face of laboratory delays?
What can the EU hope for?
Two options are now on the table, underlines Marie Albertini, a lawyer specializing in commercial litigation. “The first is to request the termination of the contract for non-performance, with damages. The second, most likely, would be to require the forced execution of the contract, that is to say that AstraZeneca delivers the quantities of missing doses on time, ”notes the specialist who has taken note of the contract. a partially censored version has been made public.
A notion present in the contract will then be at the heart of the discussions: that of “best reasonable effort”, literally the “best possible efforts”.
“This expression means that the laboratory has an obligation to provide the doses, doing everything it can reasonably do to fulfill its contract.
This does not have the same binding force as an obligation of result at all costs, ”notes the lawyer.
Above all, the debate will still focus on the deliveries already made by the laboratory outside the EU, and in particular to the United Kingdom, which would benefit, according to some, from preferential treatment.
VIDEO.
"I would never have thought to throw away doses of AstraZeneca": the anger of a doctor
Preferential treatment in the UK?
While deliveries are struggling to arrive on time in France and its European neighbors, they do not seem to have experienced any delays in the United Kingdom. "The basic problem is there: the laboratory will have to explain why it is struggling so much to deliver the quantities planned in Europe, whereas it can do so without problem in the United States as in the United Kingdom", underlines Marie Albertini.
For its part, the group had already indicated that the contracts with London had been signed long before those engaging it with Brussels.
If the vaccine had certainly been authorized in the United Kingdom at the end of December, that is to say a month before the EU, "the excuse is a little short", judges the lawyer.
Still, the vaccine is manufactured at two English sites, in Oxford and Keele.
Likewise, a third plant in Wrexham, Wales, packages the sera for distribution.
No wonder then that the United Kingdom is served first.
"If there are production sites on the territory, logistics could only be favored", adds Maître Muriel Bodin, specialist in health law.
Will the action penalize the distribution of the vaccine?
Taking legal action when a contract is still in full execution can be risky, particularly in view of the delays involved. However, the threat seems limited in this specific case, believes lawyer Marie Albertini. “An urgent action can be really effective. The Belgian courts will be able to take a decision in the coming month, ordering the delivery of the missing doses, given the urgency of the situation. Likewise, we can imagine that the laboratory, already in turmoil, will not want to further tarnish its image and will comply with court decisions, ”she judges.
Asked by Politico magazine, some European diplomats are nevertheless worried about the impact that such a lawsuit could have on the already modest confidence of citizens in the British vaccine. A mistrust aroused by the very rare cases of thrombosis observed, and which, despite communication efforts, is struggling to dissipate. In France, only 70% of the AstraZeneca doses delivered have been administered, while the virus continues its course on the territory.